Ask The Pilot

[Mattg]

I don't think this has been answered yet...
Under what circumstances would a pilot ask for a runway change? How often would it be given if asked for? In your opinion would it be acceptable for a pilot to request 34L/16R (in SYD) over 34R/16L because they are running late and want to make up time?

 

[jb747]

What do the VOR bearings tell you, or what do you do with that information?

There are lots of different navigation aids. A fairly rudimentary one is an ADF/NDB, or non directional beacon. That's just an AM radio station that transmits a signal. A pointer in the aircraft will point at it, and it will normally be displayed on a compass rose. Prone to lots of errors and not particularly accurate. VOR is a similar aid, but in its case the signal varies with your bearing from it, so whilst it is displayed in much the same way, the bearing is much more stable and accurate. Both of these can be used to fly 'non precision' approaches, which will get us down to around 500 feet above the ground, but which won't necessarily be aligned with a runway. DME gives us a distance from the equipment, and coupled with either an NDB or VOR gives us a bearing and a distance...a fix. TACAN is a military aid which is functionally the same as a combined VOR/DME...giving a bearing and a distance.

In large part all of these have been overtaken by GPS. Whilst raw GPS data is hard to use, when fed through an FMC it allows us to fly extremely accurate 'non precision' approaches. These days, whilst there are specific GPS approaches (aka RNAV approaches) we are allowed to fly any charted NDB or VOR approach as an 'overlay' approach, basically making use of the clearances and calculations made for the NDB/VOR but actually using GPS for our data.

Whilst I always select VOR data on on my nav display, I basically only use it as a quick check of the accuracy of the FMC derived map. If the VOR pointer is correctly pointing at the aid on the map, then the map is roughly correct. We have other, more accurate ways of keeping an eye on that, but it's an old habit that protects from over reliance on computer generated data....which is almost always right.

On another note, do you guys know how this new alliance with Emirates will work, particularly from our perspective?

I doubt that we have any more information on the Emirates alliance than you do.

 

[jb747]

I don't think this has been answered yet...
Under what circumstances would a pilot ask for a runway change? How often would it be given if asked for? In your opinion would it be acceptable for a pilot to request 34L/16R (in SYD) over 34R/16L because they are running late and want to make up time?

Firstly you can always ask. If allocated 34R, and 34L would be better and save you some time, then nothing is lost by requesting it. Same (for instance) in Singapore, where 02C is currently the departure runway, but 02L is a much shorter taxi for many. ATC will generally accommodate such requests if they don't cause other issues.

But, you can also demand (for want of a better term). I don't know the system ATC use to allocate runway usage, but, whatever agreements or rules they have do not overwhelm the pilots' power to require runways for operational (i.e. safety) reasons. So, if I'm arriving in Melbourne in my 744 or 380, and they assign me 27, I'm under no obligation to accept it, and will simply (say) require 16/34 for operational reasons. It happens all of the time. You'd look a dill if you went off the end of a short runway, when there was a nice long one right next to it. Nevertheless, we don't knock them back for the fun of it. If I can reasonably land on the runway offered then I generally will...but I won't accept a limiting operation (i.e. very limited margins).

ATC normally have a pretty good idea of what we will and won't accept, but it's also quite common for them to run a query past us. We get no points for making their life harder...nor do they.

 

[Simo]

Firstly you can always ask. If allocated 34R, and 34L would be better and save you some time, then nothing is lost by requesting it. Same (for instance) in Singapore, where 02C is currently the departure runway, but 02L is a much shorter taxi for many. ATC will generally accommodate such requests if they don't cause other issues.

But, you can also demand (for want of a better term). I don't know the system ATC use to allocate runway usage, but, whatever agreements or rules they have do not overwhelm the pilots' power to require runways for operational (i.e. safety) reasons. So, if I'm arriving in Melbourne in my 744 or 380, and they assign me 27, I'm under no obligation to accept it, and will simply (say) require 16/34 for operational reasons. It happens all of the time. You'd look a dill if you went off the end of a short runway, when there was a nice long one right next to it. Nevertheless, we don't knock them back for the fun of it. If I can reasonably land on the runway offered then I generally will...but I won't accept a limiting operation (i.e. very limited margins).

ATC normally have a pretty good idea of what we will and won't accept, but it's also quite common for them to run a query past us. We get no points for making their life harder...nor do they.

Very interesting read JB747 I actually thought that they would allocate the run way that was allowed for the type of plane that you are landing.

I also thought you wanted to land into a head wind if possible to assist the landing.

 

[Major]

Firstly you can always ask. If allocated 34R, and 34L would be better and save you some time, then nothing is lost by requesting it. Same (for instance) in Singapore, where 02C is currently the departure runway, but 02L is a much shorter taxi for many. ATC will generally accommodate such requests if they don't cause other issues.

But, you can also demand (for want of a better term). I don't know the system ATC use to allocate runway usage, but, whatever agreements or rules they have do not overwhelm the pilots' power to require runways for operational (i.e. safety) reasons. So, if I'm arriving in Melbourne in my 744 or 380, and they assign me 27, I'm under no obligation to accept it, and will simply (say) require 16/34 for operational reasons. It happens all of the time. You'd look a dill if you went off the end of a short runway, when there was a nice long one right next to it. Nevertheless, we don't knock them back for the fun of it. If I can reasonably land on the runway offered then I generally will...but I won't accept a limiting operation (i.e. very limited margins).

ATC normally have a pretty good idea of what we will and won't accept, but it's also quite common for them to run a query past us. We get no points for making their life harder...nor do they.

How far out would you be if requesting a runway change ?

 

[mjt57]

There are lots of different navigation aids. A fairly rudimentary one is an ADF/NDB, or non directional beacon.

I've seen an NDB in operation in a Piper light aircraft. Basically an arrow pointing towards the airfield.

I doubt that we have any more information on the Emirates alliance than you do.

Thanks.

On yet another note, could an A380 do DXB-MEL in one stint? Or would it need to stop somewhere?

 

[markis10]

Very interesting read JB747 I actually thought that they would allocate the run way that was allowed for the type of plane that you are landing.

I also thought you wanted to land into a head wind if possible to assist the landing.

Most runways have similar aircraft capabilities, so the usual proviso is the traffic pattern. Where there are dual runways, you will often see traffic divided by geographical destination/origin, so one for ports south and west while the other is used for ports north and east, this results in a natural separation making life a bit easier for controllers.

As JB747 said, pilots can request specific runways for specific operational reasons, often these requests will come with a traffic penalty in terms of extra time to fit the non standard aircraft not the pattern. Another common but necessary time soak is pilots requesting full runway length departure at airports that do not have a taxiway entering the runway at its end, necessitating entry and back track to line up which can take considerable time, making the runway useless for the duration in terms of other traffic use, it's generally not a good idea to clear any aircraft for departure when there is more than one on the runway.

 

[jb747]

How far out would you be if requesting a runway change ?

The earlier that you ask, the more likely that ATC will be able to manage the change without additional delays. So, a place where it's very common is for the QF10 arrival into Melbourne, were I normally pass down the request a couple of hundred miles out.

Worth noting too, that there should not be a penalty from ATC when the runway requirement is for operational reasons. For instance, whilst 380s have landed on 27 in Melbourne, on most days, we cannot do so at all, 'cos it's simply too short.

In Australia ATC is sadly often forced to operate airports in less than optimum modes simply to accommodate politicians. Sydney and it's noise sharing is an example. In that case, non optimum runways are used at certain times of day, throwing up operations to shorter than desirable runways, or operations to runways with crosswind, when better alternatives exist. In my opinion, they have been lucky thus far in not having an accident (of course it won't be their (politicians) fault, as the pilot didn't object!). The stupidity of landing a 767 on 16L whilst a Dash 8 lands on 16R (Sydney) is not lost on most of us....and for that reason I always refused 16L for landings. Nevertheless, you often hear somewhat confused sounding foreign crews when being assigned an unexpected runway.

Whilst we prefer to land with a headwind, many factors will affect our choice. Often there can be a headwind on the ground, but tailwind down the approach. In that case, it may be better to accept a small downwind component (10 knots is normally doable without issues on most aircraft). Mostly I prefer a crosswind onto a long runway, rather than the same wind as a head component to a short one (i.e. Melbourne 34/16 vs 27/09). All other things being equal, we'd prefer to fly further to avoid having to taxi further.

Declare an emergency, and the world is yours. When I landed in Manila in 2008, I landed on the reciprocal of the duty runway. Whilst brake issues were one of the problems we had, and that choice gave us a very small downwind component, it had the positive of not requiring an instrument approach, and of allowing us to get onto the ground sooner. The fact that we came to a halt amongst the many waiting departing aircraft was of no consequence.

I recently took a 380 there for the reconfiguration work. The aircraft is very severely limited there due to proximity of taxiways, obstacles and narrow radius turns. For that reason, the best taxi path required a take off on 24, but a landing on 06. Whilst we were moving on the ground, the entire airport had to cease operations. Needless to say that took some arranging, and on our return flight we held for quite a while whilst ATC made the 'gap' for us to fit into.

 

[jb747]

I've seen an NDB in operation in a Piper light aircraft. Basically an arrow pointing towards the airfield.

Pointing towards the aid not the airfield....there's a difference. Or, as is common with ADFs, pointing at the nearest thunderstorm.

On yet another note, could an A380 do DXB-MEL in one stint?

Easy. Actually DXB-SYD is the longer leg, but it too won't be an issue. By my calculations the 380 could also do Dallas Sydney, but I guess we don't have enough of them....

 

[QFflyermelbourne]

Declare an emergency, and the world is yours. When I landed in Manila in 2008, I landed on the reciprocal of the duty runway. Whilst brake issues were one of the problems we had, and that choice gave us a very small downwind component, it had the positive of not requiring an instrument approach, and of allowing us to get onto the ground sooner. The fact that we came to a halt amongst the many waiting departing aircraft was of no consequence.

Firstly JB747 immense thanks for your contribution to this thread which has been a great joy for me the past months...

Now this raises an interesting thought. What is the (if any?) policy regarding ATC moving aircraft on the ground in such a situation. I would have thought that given neither ATC or yourself knew exactly the condition of the exterior of your aircraft, nor exactly what had gone wrong that there would be some small chance the landing could have resulted in some kind of loss of control or explosion. Is seems bizarre that once your runway choice was decided, ATC didn't attempt to move waiting traffic so they wouldn't be hanging at the edge of the runway as a potentially out-of-control 747 came at them head on.

Even if this likelihood is way too far-fetched in your scenario, surely in other declared emergencies (hitting the dirt with no landing gear for eg.) this would be a far greater risk. is there any sort of line in the sand where ATC would clear all the traffic around as best they could?

 

[mjt57]

Pointing towards the aid not the airfield....there's a difference. Or, as is common with ADFs, pointing at the nearest thunderstorm.

I take it that you're joking here, in that ADBs aren't supposed to point at thunderstorms...

Easy. Actually DXB-SYD is the longer leg, but it too won't be an issue. By my calculations the 380 could also do Dallas Sydney, but I guess we don't have enough of them....

Interesting. Missus is looking at flights to LHR still, trying to line everything up with our cruise and a quick trip over the pond to New York. Apparently she has deemed that Emirates is in the running. But with the new partnership coming into effect in April, I think it is, I'm hoping that we could be on a QF, rather than an EK...

 

[jb747]

Firstly JB747 immense thanks for your contribution to this thread which has been a great joy for me the past months...

Now this raises an interesting thought. What is the (if any?) policy regarding ATC moving aircraft on the ground in such a situation. I would have thought that given neither ATC or yourself knew exactly the condition of the exterior of your aircraft, nor exactly what had gone wrong that there would be some small chance the landing could have resulted in some kind of loss of control or explosion. Is seems bizarre that once your runway choice was decided, ATC didn't attempt to move waiting traffic so they wouldn't be hanging at the edge of the runway as a potentially out-of-control 747 came at them head on.

Even if this likelihood is way too far-fetched in your scenario, surely in other declared emergencies (hitting the dirt with no landing gear for eg.) this would be a far greater risk. is there any sort of line in the sand where ATC would clear all the traffic around as best they could?

Interesting and quite valid question.

ATC can make any moves they like to get aircraft away. There is a maintenance apron near the northern end of 06, and for all I know they may well have put some aircraft there. Equally, they very likely held aircraft at the gate, or on the crossing runway, pending the outcome of our arrival. Aircraft in flight would have been a priority for them, as they will have limited time available for holding.

Apart from failure of the anti skid, we had no reason to think that the landing would be anything out of the ordinary. I even told the passengers that. So, at worst, I thought we might blow some tyres, and even that I didn't consider likely (we didn't). With the energy vector of the aircraft straight down the runway, it's very unlikely to stray very far from the centre.

I sort of doubt that there would be too many ATC policies with regard to any of this. I expect they're like the pilots, in that they train for likely situations, but are also aware that they'll have to make it up on the day. There will be many situations in which ATC and the landing aircraft will work together, where the emergency aircraft has the time to allow it. In other case, the emergency aircraft is going to land as soon as it arrives, irrespective of others. Situations vary.

 

[D747]

Hi jb,

I was wondering at what point you receive information regarding both gate and "taxi path" information for arrival please?

 

[jb747]

I take it that you're joking here, in that ADBs aren't supposed to point at thunderstorms...

Not joking at all. It's a very old and inaccurate navigation aid. They're affected by all sorts of things, and yes, they will point at thunderstorms.

 

[simonpenny408]

Reminds me of the old David Gunson thing - "What goes up might come down" where the second controller was called the catcher

Now that was quite a funny speech in it's day and I think you can still get copies on Amazon (and it's also on You Tube scattered around in pieces)

Most runways have similar aircraft capabilities, so the usual proviso is the traffic pattern. Where there are dual runways, you will often see traffic divided by geographical destination/origin, so one for ports south and west while the other is used for ports north and east, this results in a natural separation making life a bit easier for controllers.

As JB747 said, pilots can request specific runways for specific operational reasons, often these requests will come with a traffic penalty in terms of extra time to fit the non standard aircraft not the pattern. Another common but necessary time soak is pilots requesting full runway length departure at airports that do not have a taxiway entering the runway at its end, necessitating entry and back track to line up which can take considerable time, making the runway useless for the duration in terms of other traffic use, it's generally not a good idea to clear any aircraft for departure when there is more than one on the runway.

 

[jb747]

Hi jb,

I was wondering at what point you receive information regarding both gate and "taxi path" information for arrival please?

Gate info often comes from the company an hour or so out. Taxiway route comes from ATC at the time, though there's always a limited set of possible routes.

 

[matty744]

Hi JB
Thanks for taking the time answering everything in this thread!
Sitting on a 744 operated QF11 in row 40 the other day and noticed in the crew rest area of that row that besides the normal air con vents, the rest area had another set directly behind the normal set but with a sign saying "conditioned air". any ideas as to what this is for? fresh air rather than recycled maybe?

 

[Poisson]

JB747 I must join the others in thanking you for your very generous contribution of time and effort to this thread. It's absolutely fascinating.

A few years ago (2005 - 2007) I flew regularly in and out of Karratha in 737s. The landings there were inevitably pretty hard, and it was explained to me that the runway was "too short" hence the need for a steeper approach and heavier landing. Would there be any truth in that? What changes do you make in your approach to a shorter runway compared with a longer one?

(Karratha runway was extended and widened in 2009, from 1850m to 2280m).

Many thanks
Paul

 

[SenZubEanS]

Hey JB, just with reference to the following story re: QF1 VH-OQF turning back yesterday - Emergency landing for Qantas jet | News.com.au

Firstly, have you run into many of these types of scenarios over your RPT career?
Secondly, if you are the next crew to fly OQF after an incident like this, are you given additional checklists or noted to do or record anything differently either for QF or ATSB etc?

 

[Simo]

I was wondering if you where flying that flight.

Be interesting to see the outcome as one of the paxs said the smell was like rubbish